Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Graft for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for stable left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) remains controversial. METHODS: Digital databases were searched to compare the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its components. A random effect model was used to compute an unadjusted odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: A total of 43 studies (37 observational and 6 RCTs) consisting of 29,187 patients (PCI 13,709 and CABG 15,478) were identified. The 30-day rate of MACCE (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42–0.76; p = 0.0002) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30–0.91; p = 0.02) was significantly lower in the PCI group. There was no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) (p = 0.17) and revascularization (p = 0.12). At 5 years, CABG was favored due to a significantly lower rate of MACCE (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.18–2.36; p = <0.04), MI (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.35–2.06; p = <0.00001), and revascularization (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.18–3.60; p = <0.00001), respectively. PCI was associated with a lower overall rate of a stroke, while the risk of all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups at 1- (p = 0.75), 5- (p = 0.72), and 10-years (p = 0.20). The Kaplan–Meier curve reconstruction revealed substantial variations over time; the 5-year incidence of MACCE was 38% with CABG, significantly lower than 45% with PCI (p = <0.00001). CONCLUSION: PCI might offer early safety advantages, while CABG provides greater durability in terms of lower long-term risk of ischemic events. There appears to be an equivalent risk for all-cause mortality.